Today, I thought we would get together with a few of my favorite online Cowboys' friends, David Newbury and Rafael Vela. Newbury is on Sportsradio 1310 The Ticket and can be followed on Twitter at @Newbury1310 while Vela has been blogging on the Cowboys online for years and years. His current home is Cowboys Nation and is a fantastic resource. You can also follow him on Twitter at @cowboysnation1 and both are worthwhile follows.

Bob Sturm: I would like to start by getting both of you to elaborate on your thoughts going into the offseason on the topics of the veterans who might be gone, the cap situation, and how that affects Anthony Spencer and any free agency ideas you have. Can he be kept? If not, how big of a deal is this? Would you franchise or extend for years? And, is Romo a no-brainer for a 4-5 year extension?

That should get the ball rolling. Whoever would like first, fire away!

David Newbury: The Cowboys&#8217; head into the 2013 offseason with a payroll north of $134 million and 43 players under contract. As of today Dallas has $90 million committed to 10 players. Romo, Carr and Ware have a combined cap number of $44.4 million. Free, Austin, Ratliff, Connor and Sensabaugh currently combine for $33.6 million towards the 2013 cap. Dallas also has a cap deficit of $5 million because of their penalties. They face two major decisions this offseason that will greatly impact the rest of their roster. Should Dallas keep Anthony Spencer and should they extend Tony Romo?

The fear of losing Spencer should not be the reason Dallas extends Romo. If Jerry believes he is a Super Bowl caliber QB then he should extend him. Unfortunately, this GM is never honest with himself. Jerry truly believes that the Cowboys are close to being a Super Bowl contender. It&#8217;s the reason he traded a 1st, 3rd and 6th round pick for Roy Williams and gave Leonard Davis $50 million. Jerry is also terrified of making a move that will delay a Super Bowl appearance. That fear lead to him overpaying Free, Austin and Williams. Over 20% of the 2012 cap was tied up by dead money. Dallas decided to spread part of the cap penalty and dead money to 2013 so they could be active in free agency. Jerry chose to go for it again in 2012 instead of planning for the future. Jerry gave Carr $60 million, Livings $18.7 million, Bernadeau $11.5 million and Dan Connor $6.5 million. Instead of drafting Spencer&#8217;s replacement Jerry decided to trade his 2nd round pick for another corner. I love Mo Claiborne but I hate the trade. Those decisions could keep Dallas from resigning Spencer and force them to release serviceable veterans like Sensabaugh and Austin.

Interesting that from Vela's list, you don't really see that it's the teams with the most picks that end up with the strongest teams, necessarily. And the other teams down there with us at the bottom are pretty decent, too.

3 guys that run circles around all the DFW journalists, including 'scouts' like BB.

For relative amateurs the work these guys put out is just as quality as anything the 'pros' do anyday.

I've learned more from Sturm about Garrett's offense and exactly why this offense is struggling than I ever would've gained from a FWST or DMN cronie, and especially from Broaddus - for a pro scout, nothing in his 'skill set' really separates himself from the rest of the pack.

3 guys that run circles around all the DFW journalists, including 'scouts' like BB.

For relative amateurs the work these guys put out is just as quality as anything the 'pros' do anyday.

I've learned more from Sturm about Garrett's offense and exactly why this offense is struggling than I ever would've gained from a FWST or DMN cronie, and especially from Broaddus - for a pro scout, nothing in his 'skill set' really separates himself from the rest of the pack.

I agree that these three guys are all better than the run of the mill journalists who cover the Cowboys for money. I don't have a problem with Broaddus, though, except I can't shake that he looks like Todd Packer from The Office.

I agree that these three guys are all better than the run of the mill journalists who cover the Cowboys for money. I don't have a problem with Broaddus, though, except I can't shake that he looks like Todd Packer from The Office.

My only beef with him is that you'd think with someone who spent countless hours surrounded by some of the brightest minds in the game, he'd be capable of offering something reminiscent of a pro scout.

Never have we been like, man I can't wait for that guys next piece. As opposed to a guy like couchscout, whom seems to be a low-level NFL scout and his work is night and day to an exerienced vet like Broaddus.

Looks like those guys believe Spencer is a) has a bunch of time left in his prime; b) would thrive in the 4-3; and c) is worth doling out a fairly big contract to.

The whole "pay him now and figure it out later" idea is all well and good, but it equates to "pay him now and suffer and/or lose equally pivotal parts later." I'm just not sure I agree. Of all the guys coming up for big deals (Dez, Lee, Tyron, etc.), Spencer is BY FAR the oldest. If we need to let one guy go to avoid having that type of deal on the books, for the ease of negotiations with the others, it would be Spencer.

I'm not saying I'm 100% sure I want Spencer out of here, but there certainly are perks to it. If only we knew that Crawford was a capable starter. I don't think he showed a single thing when it comes to pass rush, and that concerns me.

I understand that Spencer had a career year and it is hard to argue with wanting to resign productive players. But I am not sure that Spencer will have long term success at defensive end because I am not sure he will be able to take the pounding he is going to get at end. He is going to be used differently. Personally I think he will do well early on and will wear down kinda like Ratliff did. You can get by with using a mismatched part for so long, but the wear and tear it takes makes it wear out a lot sooner than if you had plugged in the right part in the first place. He is too small to be lined up on the line.

I understand that Spencer had a career year and it is hard to argue with wanting to resign productive players. But I am not sure that Spencer will have long term success at defensive end because I am not sure he will be able to take the pounding he is going to get at end. He is going to be used differently. Personally I think he will do well early on and will wear down kinda like Ratliff did. You can get by with using a mismatched part for so long, but the wear and tear it takes makes it wear out a lot sooner than if you had plugged in the right part in the first place. He is too small to be lined up on the line.

I disagree that DE in a 4-3 takes more of a pounding than a 3-4 OLB.

I'd also disagree with Spencer having a "career year". Dallas was so depleted up the middle that teams didn't have to attack Spencer but when they did, they were very successful at it. Similar to people thinking Jenkins was playing well when he wasn't when Newman was gimpy and QBs were throwing to the 10 yard open man he was covering rather than the 5 yard open guy Jenkins was on. Spencer may have posted his highest sack total but most were still garbage sacks where he wasn't beating anyone.

I would still take Spencer on the team as long as he's being paid for middling production because he is a decent player but Dallas cannot pay him like a star when he isn't.

I'd also disagree with Spencer having a "career year". Dallas was so depleted up the middle that teams didn't have to attack Spencer but when they did, they were very successful at it. Similar to people thinking Jenkins was playing well when he wasn't when Newman was gimpy and QBs were throwing to the 10 yard open man he was covering rather than the 5 yard open guy Jenkins was on. Spencer may have posted his highest sack total but most were still garbage sacks where he wasn't beating anyone.

I would still take Spencer on the team as long as he's being paid for middling production because he is a decent player but Dallas cannot pay him like a star when he isn't.

I agree with this. Spencer is being massively overvalued because he lucked into a few sacks. This guy doesn`t routinely beat OTs and will be a disaster as 8-figure player about to turn 29 years old.

I agree with this. Spencer is being massively overvalued because he lucked into a few sacks. This guy doesn`t routinely beat OTs and will be a disaster as 8-figure player about to turn 29 years old.

Total BS. Go back and watch the clutch sacks Spencer had this season. I think he is a much better 3-4 OLB, not a great 4-3 DE, but you guys are being completely ridiculous in questioning his play in 2012/13.

Total BS. Go back and watch the clutch sacks Spencer had this season. I think he is a much better 3-4 OLB, not a great 4-3 DE, but you guys are being completely ridiculous in questioning his play in 2012/13.

There's a lot of let-him-walk history for people to overcome when it comes to resigning Anthony Spencer.

Woy sounds like he's heard the parameters for a deal, and that we're likely to be in the neighborhood of getting something done if we really want to. I think it depends what the new coaches think of his ability to play DE at a high level.

I'd like to get his deal done, if we can do it without hamstringing ourselves. I'm worried about paying the huge premium, but it'll be a lot easier to address both OL and DL in the draft if we don't have a gaping new hole at DE.

Interesting that from Vela's list, you don't really see that it's the teams with the most picks that end up with the strongest teams, necessarily. And the other teams down there with us at the bottom are pretty decent, too.

I did not read the posts to this thread at all until I read the entire article. What went through my mind as I read Vela's list was someone would pick out Detroit and try and blunt the message all three journalists were addressing.

It took one post.

And in all the dancing, ignoring the results of this team seems to be America's Team favorite indoor sport.

They are where they are because they compound mistakes by making more mistakes.

You could almost take this article, sift through the threads over the last two seasons and see these very comments without a nice little chart by some of the fans here.

Interesting that from Vela's list, you don't really see that it's the teams with the most picks that end up with the strongest teams, necessarily. And the other teams down there with us at the bottom are pretty decent, too.

Yep thats a very good point. And it's kind of funny how he still tried to stick to his reasoning even when everybody can see he is wrong.

Vela was making a hypothesis by assuming that "draft picks are the major currency and the league plays a version of Jerry's wealth distribution game". But after looking at the results that list just proves thats it's not that way.

I did not read the posts to this thread at all until I read the entire article. What went through my mind as I read Vela's list was someone would pick out Detroit and try and blunt the message all three journalists were addressing.

It took one post.

And in all the dancing, ignoring the results of this team seems to be America's Team favorite indoor sport.

They are where they are because they compound mistakes by making more mistakes.

You could almost take this article, sift through the threads over the last two seasons and see these very comments without a nice little chart by some of the fans here.

It is evident what causes this.

It is less so what will stop the causal component.

Not just Detroit. It was Detroit, KC, and Miami that caught my eye up top. And the Saints and the Jets that caught my eye on the bottom. And I'm going to take your post here as confirmation that you saw exactly the same thing, and the only difference was that, instead of evaluating it honestly, you instead attempted to make the observation about something it's not.

I don't think the Vela data is very telling. So it goes. He's a good blogger, though, and at least defends his opinion. If you want damning, for my money, Newbury's "As of today Dallas has $90 million committed to 10 players" line is a lot more indicative of the problem than Vela's two-thirds-of-a-league-chart-from-an-arbitrary-time-period-that-leads-to-no-conclusion-at-all does.

Not just Detroit. It was Detroit, KC, and Miami that caught my eye up top. And the Saints and the Jets that caught my eye on the bottom. And I'm going to take your post here as confirmation that you saw exactly the same thing, and the only difference was that, instead of evaluating it honestly, you instead attempted to make the observation about something it's not.

I don't think the Vela data is very telling. So it goes. He's a good blogger, though, and at least defends his opinion. If you want damning, for my money, Newbury's "As of today Dallas has $90 million committed to 10 players" line is a lot more indicative of the problem than Vela's two-thirds-of-a-league-chart-from-an-arbitrary-time-period-that-leads-to-no-conclusion-at-all does.

What is the record of this team, not some other team over the last sixteen years?

Answer that.

That always seems to be the proposition people leave out when they make excuses because someone else is doing something or not doing something.

Poor drafting, mistakes made after signing players to too much money and getting away from the draft.

There is a distinct equation here as to why THIS TEAM has been sucking eggs.

What other teams are doing or not doing, there is empirical evidence that this team has made one poor decision after another.

When will you admit that without a caveat and with conviction? No dancing.

Because there are simple reasons why Dallas has been also-rans.

Further, note in my original comment in this thread that I stated they could just about take all those comments, including the 90 million dollar comment, and go find posters who have been saying this over the last two years in one form or another.

What is the record of this team, not some other team over the last sixteen years?

Answer that.

That always seems to be the proposition people leave out when they make excuses because someone else is doing something or not doing something.

Poor drafting, mistakes made after signing players to too much money and getting away from the draft.

There is a distinct equation here as to why THIS TEAM has been sucking eggs.

What other teams are doing or not doing, there is empirical evidence that this team has made one poor decision after another.

When will you admit that without a caveat and with conviction? No dancing.

Because there are simple reasons why Dallas has been also-rans.

Further, note in my original comment in this thread that I stated they could just about take all those comments, including the 90 million dollar comment, and go find posters who have been saying this over the last two years in one form or another.

Most of those posters have been earmarked as negative.

Truth will set you free idgit.

And all of this has exactly zero to do with my comment which you responded to.

When it comes to personnel, this team has made a number of poor personnel decisions. They blew the Doug Free re-signing. The Roy Williams trade was a huge mistake. The Marion Barber extension. The Ratliff extension. The Felix Jones pick. The Fasano and Bennett picks. The mid-round OL picks from Parcels on. This isn't news, and it's not anything I've ever contested. In fact, it's all stuff I've freely admitted in thread after thread, though it largely gets ignored because at the same time, I'm also able to acknowledge things the team's done right during that same time frame.

Put all of that together, though, and it still doesn't make Vela's draft picks chart indicative of anything in particular. You can choose to ignore what the chart actually says if you care to, or how arbitrary the period is. But, if you want to criticize the Cowboys' recent mistakes, there are a lot better ways to actually do it and have it make sense.

All that said, as I mentioned in my OP and you ignored for whatever reason, I think the article was mostly good, critical stuff. I enjoyed it.